< PREVIOUS ] [ 1993 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >
Every time Bill Clinton tries to keep a campaign promise, he runs into trouble: lesbians and urnings in the military, economic stimulus package, and most recently, public financing of congressional and senate campaigns.
A winning candidate naturally feels some gratitude to those who contributed to the campaign, and will express that gratitude with favorable legislation.
If the campaign money comes from National Widget, then widgets get a protective tariff or domestic-content legislation. If campaign workers come from the Amalgamated Brotherhood of Featherbedders & Goldbrickers, then all government contractors or suppliers must employ a given quota from the Featherbedders Union at $28.31 an hour.
And if the financing came from the public, then the senator or representative might feel obliged to serve the public.
However, that idealistic notion has come under attack as
an entitlement program for politicians.
We must ward
off creeping socialism, and thus some see it as a boon that
our public officials are owned and operated by private
enterprises.
But the last time I checked, it cost about $6 million to run for the U.S. Senate from Colorado, which is a relatively small state. No candidate can raise that kind of money from Colorado alone, which means any senator will be somewhat beholden to other regions.
And a Republican candidate for the 1994 gubernatorial
race told me recently that the party honchos told him that
whoever can raise the most money will get the
nomination.
Ideas, integrity, interest -- those don't
matter.
The solution? We should eliminate all campaign financing, including that by the candidates themselves -- otherwise, the Perots of this world could finance their own campaigns, and keep others out of the running.
The first benefit is that anyone with time and energy could run for office. Instead of rich white guys in suits, our House of Representatives would be more truly representative -- panhandlers, laid-off factory workers, recent college graduates whose expensive education hasn't produced a career. Without the need to amass campaign warchests, they'd have a fair chance of getting in.
Second, no helicopters, charter jets or limousines. The candidate would have to hitchhike or hop freights from town to town, and then walk door to door to persuade us to vote for her. She'd see homes and businesses from the inside, and would be forced to listen to us, rather than consultants and contributors.
Third, in order to get media exposure, the candidate couldn't just buy TV, radio or newspaper ads. Instead, the candidate would have to do or say something interesting -- and the claims would be published or broadcast along with counterclaims and cross-checks, thereby discouraging blatant fabrications.
This, along with the greater diversity of candidates and the face-to-face meetings and the chance that the person thumbing a ride is the next governor or senator, would inspire more voter interest.
Indeed, the Federalist Papers show that the founding fathers envisioned this sort of campaigning. Further, this get-out-and-hustle campaign-on-the-cheap is not all that different from the campaigns run last year by two candidates of different parties -- U.S. Rep. Scott McInnis and State Sen. Linda Powers -- and they both won.
So forget campaign-finance reform. If we just eliminated campaign finance altogether, reform would come naturally.
< PREVIOUS ] [ 1993 Index ] [ Ed Quillen HOME ] [ SEARCH ] [ NEXT >